.The
victory of Dr. Rand Paul—son of highly regarded
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas)—in the GOP Senate
primary in Kentucky may not be the signal of populist
change at all. Instead, just days after Paul’s
widely publicized triumph over a traditional “mainstream
conservative,” it has now been revealed
that the younger Paul—very much unlike his
father—is a fervent supporter of the strident
hard-line “neo-conservative” outlook
toward U.S. Middle East policy.This
news came as very much a shock to Paul’s
supporters around the country, who believed (incorrectly
it appears) that Paul shared his father’s
hallmark longtime advocacy of U.S. neutrality
and opposition to international meddling.The
truth about young Paul’s position, which
could be referred to as “militant Zionist,”
was quietly unveiled just at the time when the
mass media in America was devoting much time to
a controversy surrounding the newly nominated
Senate candidate’s remarks about civil rights
legislation that were perceived to be hostile
to minority interests.So
although the general public was treated to the
concept that Paul’s views may be hostile,
legislatively, to minorities vis-à-vis
racial issues, those minority groups that support
Israel have no problem with Paul’s stance
in favor of the entire agenda of the pro-Israel
lobby inWashington.Although
both pro-Israel groups and critics of Israeli
treatment of the Christians and Muslims of Palestine
were quickly assessing the new discovery regarding
Paul’s heretofore largely unknown views
regarding Middle East policy, little, if anything,
has been remarked about the subject by the major
print and broadcast media.Paul’s
formal position paper titled “The United
States Special Relationship with Israel,”
was apparently released to the pro-Israel lobby
by Paul’s campaign and was then leaked to
a very limited circle of pro- Israel elements
in the media.The
tone of the paper is such that it could easily
have been crafted by zealots operating in and
around the tightly knit longtime pro-Israel “neo-conservative”
clique of Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Stephen
Bryen and Douglas Feith—all of whom, at
one time or another, have been investigated by
the FBI on suspicions of espionage on behalf of
Israel.To
assure readers that AMERICAN FREE PRESS is not
overstating the matter regarding the rhetoric
employed by Paul, we herewith present the entire
text, unedited in any way, of Paul’s position
paper. (See page 13.)Although
the elder Paul left the 2008 presidential campaign
promising to work toward electing Ron- Paul-style
Republicans to Congress and offices across the
land, the kind of rhetoric emanating from Rand
Paul does not sound like he’s a “Ron
Paul Republican” at all.

Israel
and the United States have a special relationship.
With our shared history and common values, the American
and Israeli people have formed a bond that unites
us across the many thousands of miles between our
countries and calls us to work together towards
peace and prosperity for our countries.The
free trade agreement that has existed, and been
subsequently strengthened, between our countries
since 1985 is a tremendous mutual benefit. As a
United States Senator, I would work against the
growing protectionist sentiment in our country and
defend free trade with Israel.I
would never vote to place trade restrictions on
Israel, and I would filibuster any attempts to place
sanctions on Israel or tariffs on any Israeli goods.The
issue of Palestine is incredibly difficult and complex.
The entire world wishes for peace in the region,
but any arrangement or treaty must come from Israel,
when she is ready and when her conditions have been
met.I
strongly object to the arrogant approach of the
Obama administration, itself a continuation of the
failures of past U.S. administrations, as they push
Israel to make security concessions behind thinly
veiled threats.Only
Israel can decide what is in her security interest,
not America and certainly not the United Nations.
Friends do not coerce friends to trade land for
peace, or to give up the vital security interests
of their people.As
a United States Senator, I would never vote to condemn
Israel for defending herself. Whether
it is fighting Hezbollah in Lebanon, combating Hamas-linked
terrorists in Gaza or dealing with potential nuclear
threats in the Persian Gulf, Israeli military actions
are completely up to the leaders and military of
Israel, and Israel alone.It
is not the place of outsiders to meddle or pass
judgment or to use our power or relationship to
force Israel to go against her own interest for
the sake of “peace.”Peace
is a laudable goal. But it is just that—a
goal. It is not an end at any cost.It
makes no sense to me that the United States provides
Arab countries hostile to Israel with $12 billion
in annual financial and military aid. Many of the
weapons that Israel would face in a Middle Eastern
conflict would have come directly from our government.
I find this appalling. In the Senate, I would strive
to eliminate all aid to countries that threaten
Israel.Finally,
Iran has become increasingly bellicose towards Israel.
Thankfully, Israel has one of the bravest, most
elite military forces in the world. I would never
vote to prevent Israel from taking any military
action her leaders felt necessary to end any Iranian
threat.Just
as the United States would not follow the will of
another country in the face of our national security,
we shall not limit the options of Israel in this
area.Finally,
I believe the United States should increase the
pressure on Iran. I would mandate that all publicly
managed investment funds divest from Iran immediately.We
should not be subsidizing any company that does
business with Iran, and we should not allow U.S.
companies or those with funds from U.S. taxpayers
to enrich Iran through its national energy program.
I would fight to end all subsides [sic] to American
corporations that do business with Iran, including
so-called renewable energy companies that work through
Brazil to provide support to Iran and empower its
dictators’dangerous nuclear saber rattling.